If people really insisted that an a RAW reading would have to be made to work and that a use a RAI interpretation was enough then my suggestion from post #43 might work:
"If you already know this spell, its range (inclusive of its serviceable distance) increases by 30 feet when you cast it."
"If you already know this spell, its range and the distance from you before it vanishes both increase by 30 feet when you cast it" might be, sorta kinda, 'better'.
Perhaps best still is to leave the wording as it is and leave participants to make the obvious RAI interpretation.
In future PHb print runs WotC might write mage hand to say "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than its range distance away from you", though the only people that might substantially benefit from this might be forum participants like us.
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range. For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature. For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you (see “Areas of Effect” later in the this chapter).
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.
I put something big, bold, and in blue for you. This should help clear up what is going on with mage hand for you. The listed range at which it disappears is a function of its range, and is exactly what that big, bold, blue "range" rule is telling us might happen.
magehand has a specific limitation independent of its range.
No. It doesn't.
This is a fallacy. You've repeat it over and over but it is incorrect.
The distance at which the mage hand vanishes is a function of its range. We know this because of the text in the rules about Range. The big, blue, bolded text.
"Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise."
^ This rules text. This right here, is a part of the topic on spell Ranges. And is exactly what is going on with Mage Hand. Exactly. Mage Hand is limited by its range even after being cast, unlike other spells.
the feat dedicated to making it better doesn’t work as written.
it’s trash editing. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules by the creator, and an utter lack of attention to detail by the entire editorial crew. However many people that may be.
Your objections shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules, yes, but not by the creators.
The feat and the spell work together fine, RAI, RAW, RAF etc. There is no problem here.
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range. For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature. For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you (see “Areas of Effect” later in the this chapter).
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.
I put something big, bold, and in blue for you. This should help clear up what is going on with mage hand for you. The listed range at which it disappears is a function of its range, and is exactly what that big, bold, blue "range" rule is telling us might happen.
magehand has a specific limitation independent of its range.
No. It doesn't.
This is a fallacy. You've repeat it over and over but it is incorrect.
The distance at which the mage hand vanishes is a function of its range. We know this because of the text in the rules about Range. The big, blue, bolded text.
"Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise."
^ This rules text. This right here, is a part of the topic on spell Ranges. And is exactly what is going on with Mage Hand. Exactly. Mage Hand is limited by its range even after being cast, unlike other spells.
the feat dedicated to making it better doesn’t work as written.
it’s trash editing. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules by the creator, and an utter lack of attention to detail by the entire editorial crew. However many people that may be.
Your objections shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules, yes, but not by the creators.
The feat and the spell work together fine, RAI, RAW, RAF etc. There is no problem here.
I'm curious, where in Mage Hands description say it's effects are limited by it's range?
The spell also ends if the target is ever outside the spell’s range or if it has total cover from you.
Mage Hand, on the other hand, only says
The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you or if you cast this spell again.
No-one is denying that the range, and the distance at which mage hand vanishes, are the same value (for unmodified mage hand). However, nowhere in the spell does it refer to this limit by the spells range. By that very line you quoted (in very overt bold and blue)
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.
As far as I, and many other, can see, it doesn't say otherwise. It says 30 feet, it doesn't say "the spell's range" as is the case for Witch Bolt.
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range. For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature. For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you (see “Areas of Effect” later in the this chapter).
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.
I put something big, bold, and in blue for you. This should help clear up what is going on with mage hand for you. The listed range at which it disappears is a function of its range, and is exactly what that big, bold, blue "range" rule is telling us might happen.
magehand has a specific limitation independent of its range.
No. It doesn't.
This is a fallacy. You've repeat it over and over but it is incorrect.
The distance at which the mage hand vanishes is a function of its range. We know this because of the text in the rules about Range. The big, blue, bolded text.
"Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise."
^ This rules text. This right here, is a part of the topic on spell Ranges. And is exactly what is going on with Mage Hand. Exactly. Mage Hand is limited by its range even after being cast, unlike other spells.
the feat dedicated to making it better doesn’t work as written.
it’s trash editing. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules by the creator, and an utter lack of attention to detail by the entire editorial crew. However many people that may be.
Your objections shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules, yes, but not by the creators.
The feat and the spell work together fine, RAI, RAW, RAF etc. There is no problem here.
I'm curious, where in Mage Hands description say it's effects are limited by it's range?
The spell also ends if the target is ever outside the spell’s range or if it has total cover from you.
Mage Hand, on the other hand, only says
The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you or if you cast this spell again.
No-one is denying that the range, and the distance at which mage hand vanishes, are the same value (for unmodified mage hand). However, nowhere in the spell does it refer to this limit by the spells range. By that very line you quoted (in very overt bold and blue)
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.
As far as I, and many other, can see, it doesn't say otherwise. It says 30 feet, it doesn't say "the spell's range" as is the case for Witch Bolt.
That is it saying otherwise. When it says the hand vanishes at 30ft, that is it saying otherwise. Ask yourself. Can the spell be used at a distance greater than its range, greater than 30ft? Answer: No.
Because the spell description says as much despite this not normally being a restriction on spells in general, Mage Hand, unlike most spells, continues to have a Range limit on its use even after being cast. This is the spell description, that line specifically, telling us otherwise from the standard Range rules. 100% fulfilling the big, blue, bolded rule excerpt. 100% that is the mage hand ---> "unless the spell's description says otherwise."
I'm stunned in disbelief this many people have a hard time understanding, and are arguing against something so plainly obviously true. This is basic common sense understanding of these basic English words here. We're talking about Range. How far the thing can go. Is it a definitional issue?
5e is written in plain English and expects that you can made very simple common sense judgements. This one is pretty simple. We're not writing in code, this isn't a programming language, and what's really bizarre is I'm the one people are comfortable calling a pedant and here I am on the side of basic common usage of basic common words.
Just, for a single moment ask yourself: If the mage hand disappears at 30ft even if you have the feat that extends the range to 60ft.... does it actually have a range of 60ft?
You'd have to answer that question as: No. Because the spell fading at 30ft means it'd never go to 60ft, so under any and all circumstances saying that it had a range of 60ft would be a straight up lie. So. What does this mean?
Well, the feat does increase the range to 60ft. This is incontrovertibly true, it says as much in black and white. So, whatever we need to change to make this true is what the feat changes. If the spell fading at 30ft would prevent it from having a range of 60ft, which it would, then that gets changed.
That is it saying otherwise. When it says the hand vanishes at 30ft, that is it saying otherwise. Ask yourself. Can the spell be used at a distance greater than its range, greater than 30ft? Answer: No.
No it isn't, "30 feet" is not the same as "Range". The rule that you've correctly quoted is a general rule for spellcasting, it applies to all spells and "X feet" and "Range" are two separate concepts for determining distance limitations. For the specific spell that Mage Hand is the two happens to mark the same distance but for some other spells they differ and thus we HAVE to treat them differently otherwise things will get wonky for those other spells.
Now is it possible that the designers (way back when) really intended for Mage Hand to be limited by its "Range" in both instances and that they simply made a mistake? Sure, but one has to wonder why they haven't corrected that mistake then, they've had plenty of time.
Because the spell description says as much despite this not normally being a restriction on spells in general, Mage Hand, unlike most spells, continues to have a Range limit on its use even after being cast. This is the spell description, that line specifically, telling us otherwise from the standard Range rules. 100% fulfilling the big, blue, bolded rule excerpt. 100% that is the mage hand ---> "unless the spell's description says otherwise."
Yes most spells doesn't have a continual effect and of those that do many haven't got a distance limitation on it. But there are still quite a few spells do have continual distance limitation and they work in a few different ways, some have "Range" as its stated limit, some have "X feet (not the same as their Range)" and some have "X feet (exactly the same as their Range)". AFAIK the only one that falls in the last category is Mage Hand.
5e is written in plain English and expects that you can made very simple common sense judgements. This one is pretty simple. We're not writing in code, this isn't a programming language, and what's really bizarre is I'm the one people are comfortable calling a pedant and here I am on the side of basic common usage of basic common words.
Just, for a single moment ask yourself: If the mage hand disappears at 30ft even if you have the feat that extends the range to 60ft.... does it actually have a range of 60ft?
You'd have to answer that question as: No. Because the spell fading at 30ft means it'd never go to 60ft, so under any and all circumstances saying that it had a range of 60ft would be a straight up lie. So. What does this mean?
Yes, yes it does. It might be an utterly useless range that cannot be utilised but it is still the spells "Range" because that is what the spell/feat combo says. And this, I guess, is where our views differ.
You see this issue and apparently think something along the lines of, "Hmm, that part in the text that says '30 feet' doesn't really say '30 feet' but rather it must say 'Range'.". Where I on the other hand look at the issue and think, "gee, they ****ed up. Fine I'll go with a RAI ruling.".
And I agree, it is somewhat perplexing to have you be the one refusing to accept that the words actually says what they do. But I really don't see this as a common language v code language. Limitations written as "Range" and limitations written as "X feet" aren't just two interchangeable ways to note the same thing, they are two different ways to define limitations.
The target of a spell must be within the spell's range. For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature. For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.
Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you (see “Areas of Effect” later in the this chapter).
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.
I put something big, bold, and in blue for you. This should help clear up what is going on with mage hand for you. The listed range at which it disappears is a function of its range, and is exactly what that big, bold, blue "range" rule is telling us might happen.
The spell's description says otherwise.
The spell's description says that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
The only way the rules can function is if we change what is written to rules not as written according to a judgement of rules as intended.
We situationally change "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..." to "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 60 feet away from you..."
That is it saying otherwise. When it says the hand vanishes at 30ft, that is it saying otherwise. Ask yourself. Can the spell be used at a distance greater than its range, greater than 30ft? Answer: No.
No it isn't, "30 feet" is not the same as "Range". The rule that you've correctly quoted is a general rule for spellcasting, it applies to all spells and "X feet" and "Range" are two separate concepts for determining distance limitations. For the specific spell that Mage Hand is the two happens to mark the same distance but for some other spells they differ and thus we HAVE to treat them differently otherwise things will get wonky for those other spells.
Now is it possible that the designers (way back when) really intended for Mage Hand to be limited by its "Range" in both instances and that they simply made a mistake? Sure, but one has to wonder why they haven't corrected that mistake then, they've had plenty of time.
Because the spell description says as much despite this not normally being a restriction on spells in general, Mage Hand, unlike most spells, continues to have a Range limit on its use even after being cast. This is the spell description, that line specifically, telling us otherwise from the standard Range rules. 100% fulfilling the big, blue, bolded rule excerpt. 100% that is the mage hand ---> "unless the spell's description says otherwise."
Yes most spells doesn't have a continual effect and of those that do many haven't got a distance limitation on it. But there are still quite a few spells do have continual distance limitation and they work in a few different ways, some have "Range" as its stated limit, some have "X feet (not the same as their Range)" and some have "X feet (exactly the same as their Range)". AFAIK the only one that falls in the last category is Mage Hand.
5e is written in plain English and expects that you can made very simple common sense judgements. This one is pretty simple. We're not writing in code, this isn't a programming language, and what's really bizarre is I'm the one people are comfortable calling a pedant and here I am on the side of basic common usage of basic common words.
Just, for a single moment ask yourself: If the mage hand disappears at 30ft even if you have the feat that extends the range to 60ft.... does it actually have a range of 60ft?
You'd have to answer that question as: No. Because the spell fading at 30ft means it'd never go to 60ft, so under any and all circumstances saying that it had a range of 60ft would be a straight up lie. So. What does this mean?
Yes, yes it does. It might be an utterly useless range that cannot be utilised but it is still the spells "Range" because that is what the spell/feat combo says. And this, I guess, is where our views differ.
You see this issue and apparently think something along the lines of, "Hmm, that part in the text that says '30 feet' doesn't really say '30 feet' but rather it must say 'Range'.". Where I on the other hand look at the issue and think, "gee, they ****ed up. Fine I'll go with a RAI ruling.".
And I agree, it is somewhat perplexing to have you be the one refusing to accept that the words actually says what they do. But I really don't see this as a common language v code language. Limitations written as "Range" and limitations written as "X feet" aren't just two interchangeable ways to note the same thing, they are two different ways to define limitations.
If your reading of the rules produces nonsensical rulings like that, you may wish to consider you have it wrong. Have a great day.
The only way the rules can function is if we change what is written to rules not as written according to a judgement of rules as intended.
Naw, it functions if we just let the range of the spell be 60ft like the feat says it is. All we need to do is pretend the word "range" means: "How far something can go." Which turns out to be really easy because that's actually what it means.
We situationally change "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..." to "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 60 feet away from you..."
Correct. That is now the range. So that is how far it can go.
The only way the rules can function is if we change what is written to rules not as written according to a judgement of rules as intended.
Naw, it functions if we just let the range of the spell be 60ft like the feat says it is. All we need to do is pretend the word "range" means: "How far something can go." Which turns out to be really easy because that's actually what it means.
We situationally change "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..." to "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 60 feet away from you..."
Correct. That is now the range. So that is how far it can go.
It's correct that we'd need to make a change and the thing we are changing is RAW.
IF you go by RULES AS WRITTEN what you are doing is that you are going by RULES AS WRITTEN.
Rules as written say that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
What that means is that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
Read the words.
That's what's written.
If, however, you a DM wants to rule according to an interpretation of Rules As Intended, they may permit the hand to persist at a greater distance despite the written prescription of RAW.
This discussion is very funny. We all fully understand the intention of the rule. But if the rules are applied as written, you couldn't use the mage hand beyond 30 feet even with the improved range of the feat. I don't think anyone is such an idiot as to apply the rule as it is written, but as a meme it's quite funny.
The only way the rules can function is if we change what is written to rules not as written according to a judgement of rules as intended.
Naw, it functions if we just let the range of the spell be 60ft like the feat says it is. All we need to do is pretend the word "range" means: "How far something can go." Which turns out to be really easy because that's actually what it means.
We situationally change "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..." to "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 60 feet away from you..."
Correct. That is now the range. So that is how far it can go.
It's correct that we'd need to make a change and the thing we are changing is RAW.
IF you go by RULES AS WRITTEN what you are doing is that you are going by RULES AS WRITTEN.
Rules as written say that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
What that means is that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
Read the words.
That's what's written.
If, however, you a DM wants to rule according to an interpretation of Rules As Intended, they may permit the hand to persist at a greater distance despite the written prescription of RAW.
Specific > General.
The Feat's text supersedes the spell's text. That's how rules in 5e work.
You guys keep quoting the part of the spell that the Feat is superseding as if it is even still relevant. it isn't. The feat changed it.
The only way the rules can function is if we change what is written to rules not as written according to a judgement of rules as intended.
Naw, it functions if we just let the range of the spell be 60ft like the feat says it is. All we need to do is pretend the word "range" means: "How far something can go." Which turns out to be really easy because that's actually what it means.
We situationally change "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..." to "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 60 feet away from you..."
Correct. That is now the range. So that is how far it can go.
It's correct that we'd need to make a change and the thing we are changing is RAW.
IF you go by RULES AS WRITTEN what you are doing is that you are going by RULES AS WRITTEN.
Rules as written say that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
What that means is that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
Read the words.
That's what's written.
If, however, you a DM wants to rule according to an interpretation of Rules As Intended, they may permit the hand to persist at a greater distance despite the written prescription of RAW.
Specific > General.
The Feat's text supersedes the spell's text. That's how rules in 5e work.
You guys keep quoting the part of the spell that the Feat is superseding as if it is even still relevant. it isn't. The feat changed it.
Yep, the featspecifies about "the mage hand cantrip.... If you already know this spell, its range increases by 30 feet when you cast it." and mage hand says that "A spectral, floating hand appears at a point you choose within range."
The spell also states that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..." with the effect, if we followed RAW, that the hand could be made to appear at a distance of 30-60 feet away from you be it ever so briefly as RAW "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
This happens RAW because of your oft-quoted text from range that "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise" and the spell's description states that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
You are making a correct and valid application of RAI to the ongoing effect of the spell after the "spell is cast".
The only way the rules can function is if we change what is written to rules not as written according to a judgement of rules as intended.
Naw, it functions if we just let the range of the spell be 60ft like the feat says it is. All we need to do is pretend the word "range" means: "How far something can go." Which turns out to be really easy because that's actually what it means.
We situationally change "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..." to "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 60 feet away from you..."
Correct. That is now the range. So that is how far it can go.
It's correct that we'd need to make a change and the thing we are changing is RAW.
IF you go by RULES AS WRITTEN what you are doing is that you are going by RULES AS WRITTEN.
Rules as written say that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
What that means is that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
Read the words.
That's what's written.
If, however, you a DM wants to rule according to an interpretation of Rules As Intended, they may permit the hand to persist at a greater distance despite the written prescription of RAW.
Specific > General.
The Feat's text supersedes the spell's text. That's how rules in 5e work.
You guys keep quoting the part of the spell that the Feat is superseding as if it is even still relevant. it isn't. The feat changed it.
The “specific” text provided by the feat isn’t written in a way that actually effects the spells written description. That’s the entire point of everyone pointing out how stupid the mistake is.
it’s not like people are preventing players from enjoying the feat as intended. We just want it fixed.
The errata they released like two years after the initial UA would have been nice, since that’s how long this has been identified.
The only way the rules can function is if we change what is written to rules not as written according to a judgement of rules as intended.
Naw, it functions if we just let the range of the spell be 60ft like the feat says it is. All we need to do is pretend the word "range" means: "How far something can go." Which turns out to be really easy because that's actually what it means.
We situationally change "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..." to "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 60 feet away from you..."
Correct. That is now the range. So that is how far it can go.
It's correct that we'd need to make a change and the thing we are changing is RAW.
IF you go by RULES AS WRITTEN what you are doing is that you are going by RULES AS WRITTEN.
Rules as written say that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
What that means is that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
Read the words.
That's what's written.
If, however, you a DM wants to rule according to an interpretation of Rules As Intended, they may permit the hand to persist at a greater distance despite the written prescription of RAW.
Specific > General.
The Feat's text supersedes the spell's text. That's how rules in 5e work.
You guys keep quoting the part of the spell that the Feat is superseding as if it is even still relevant. it isn't. The feat changed it.
The “specific” text provided by the feat isn’t written in a way that actually effects the spells written description. That’s the entire point of everyone pointing out how stupid the mistake is.
it’s not like people are preventing players from enjoying the feat as intended. We just want it fixed.
The errata they released like two years after the initial UA would have been nice, since that’s how long this has been identified.
But ... there isn't a problem.
The specific text in the feat is more than clear that it supersedes the range of mage hand. So, no problem.
The Feat's text supersedes the spell's text. That's how rules in 5e work.
You guys keep quoting the part of the spell that the Feat is superseding as if it is even still relevant. it isn't. The feat changed it.
Yep, the featspecifies about "the mage hand cantrip.... If you already know this spell, its range increases by 30 feet when you cast it." and mage hand says that "A spectral, floating hand appears at a point you choose within range."
Yeah.
The spell also states that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..." with the effect, if we followed RAW, that the hand could be made to appear at a distance of 30-60 feet away from you be it ever so briefly as RAW "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
No. The range was increased to 60ft by the feat. So it can't disappear before then or it wouldn't have a range of 60ft. And it does have a range of 60ft. The RAW is "its range increases by 30 feet when you cast it."
So you take that listed number in the spell text... 30ft. And you add the increase from the feat, another 30ft. You get a new total: 60ft. Now it goes out to a range of 60ft.
This happens RAW because of your oft-quoted text from range that "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise" and the spell's description states that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
This is you just admitting you know that the number listed there is indeed a function of its range.
Why? Since this is a rule text from the section: Range. And only applies to spell Range. So the fact you know that they're both discussing the spell's range means you know that the distance at which the mage hand disappears is indeed the range of the spell. Thanks for conceding the argument.
"The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you or if you cast this spell again." <---is a function of the spell's range. This is fundamentally the problem some people are having a problem with. Why?
Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.
Once Mage Hand is cast, its effects are limited by its range, because the spell's description says as much.
You are making a correct and valid application of RAI to the ongoing effect of the spell after the "spell is cast".
It is RAW correct too. RAI would be enough, of course. But there is nothing wrong with the RAW of the TK feat.
I don’t understand how you don’t understand the telekinetic feat doesn’t work RAW. Have you looked into any of the distant spell limitations that have been going on since the game came out?
I don’t understand how you don’t understand the telekinetic feat doesn’t work RAW.
Pretty sure I summed it up succinctly enough. I believe the phrase "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you or if you cast this spell again." is a function of the spell's range. because it is. And you do not. For your own reasons whatever they are.
When the feat says "its range increases by 30 feet when you cast it." I believe that means the range at which the spell is effect and can be used at is increased by 30ft and... well, you have chosen to not read it that way for whatever your reasons are.
Have you looked into any of the distant spell limitations that have been going on since the game came out?
it’s literally the same issue and language.
You can distance spell mage hand, no issues.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I got quotes!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If people really insisted that an a RAW reading would have to be made to work and that a use a RAI interpretation was enough then my suggestion from post #43 might work:
"If you already know this spell, its range (inclusive of its serviceable distance) increases by 30 feet when you cast it."
"If you already know this spell, its range and the distance from you before it vanishes both increase by 30 feet when you cast it" might be, sorta kinda, 'better'.
Perhaps best still is to leave the wording as it is and leave participants to make the obvious RAI interpretation.
In future PHb print runs WotC might write mage hand to say "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than its range distance away from you", though the only people that might substantially benefit from this might be forum participants like us.
No. It doesn't.
This is a fallacy. You've repeat it over and over but it is incorrect.
The distance at which the mage hand vanishes is a function of its range. We know this because of the text in the rules about Range. The big, blue, bolded text.
"Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise."
^ This rules text. This right here, is a part of the topic on spell Ranges. And is exactly what is going on with Mage Hand. Exactly. Mage Hand is limited by its range even after being cast, unlike other spells.
Your objections shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules, yes, but not by the creators.
The feat and the spell work together fine, RAI, RAW, RAF etc. There is no problem here.
I got quotes!
I'm curious, where in Mage Hands description say it's effects are limited by it's range?
Compare to Witch Bolt which says explicitly
Mage Hand, on the other hand, only says
No-one is denying that the range, and the distance at which mage hand vanishes, are the same value (for unmodified mage hand). However, nowhere in the spell does it refer to this limit by the spells range. By that very line you quoted (in very overt bold and blue)
As far as I, and many other, can see, it doesn't say otherwise. It says 30 feet, it doesn't say "the spell's range" as is the case for Witch Bolt.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
That is it saying otherwise. When it says the hand vanishes at 30ft, that is it saying otherwise. Ask yourself. Can the spell be used at a distance greater than its range, greater than 30ft? Answer: No.
Because the spell description says as much despite this not normally being a restriction on spells in general, Mage Hand, unlike most spells, continues to have a Range limit on its use even after being cast. This is the spell description, that line specifically, telling us otherwise from the standard Range rules. 100% fulfilling the big, blue, bolded rule excerpt. 100% that is the mage hand ---> "unless the spell's description says otherwise."
I'm stunned in disbelief this many people have a hard time understanding, and are arguing against something so plainly obviously true. This is basic common sense understanding of these basic English words here. We're talking about Range. How far the thing can go. Is it a definitional issue?
5e is written in plain English and expects that you can made very simple common sense judgements. This one is pretty simple. We're not writing in code, this isn't a programming language, and what's really bizarre is I'm the one people are comfortable calling a pedant and here I am on the side of basic common usage of basic common words.
Just, for a single moment ask yourself: If the mage hand disappears at 30ft even if you have the feat that extends the range to 60ft.... does it actually have a range of 60ft?
You'd have to answer that question as: No. Because the spell fading at 30ft means it'd never go to 60ft, so under any and all circumstances saying that it had a range of 60ft would be a straight up lie. So. What does this mean?
Well, the feat does increase the range to 60ft. This is incontrovertibly true, it says as much in black and white. So, whatever we need to change to make this true is what the feat changes. If the spell fading at 30ft would prevent it from having a range of 60ft, which it would, then that gets changed.
I got quotes!
No it isn't, "30 feet" is not the same as "Range". The rule that you've correctly quoted is a general rule for spellcasting, it applies to all spells and "X feet" and "Range" are two separate concepts for determining distance limitations. For the specific spell that Mage Hand is the two happens to mark the same distance but for some other spells they differ and thus we HAVE to treat them differently otherwise things will get wonky for those other spells.
Now is it possible that the designers (way back when) really intended for Mage Hand to be limited by its "Range" in both instances and that they simply made a mistake? Sure, but one has to wonder why they haven't corrected that mistake then, they've had plenty of time.
Yes most spells doesn't have a continual effect and of those that do many haven't got a distance limitation on it. But there are still quite a few spells do have continual distance limitation and they work in a few different ways, some have "Range" as its stated limit, some have "X feet (not the same as their Range)" and some have "X feet (exactly the same as their Range)". AFAIK the only one that falls in the last category is Mage Hand.
Yes, yes it does. It might be an utterly useless range that cannot be utilised but it is still the spells "Range" because that is what the spell/feat combo says. And this, I guess, is where our views differ.
You see this issue and apparently think something along the lines of, "Hmm, that part in the text that says '30 feet' doesn't really say '30 feet' but rather it must say 'Range'.".
Where I on the other hand look at the issue and think, "gee, they ****ed up. Fine I'll go with a RAI ruling.".
And I agree, it is somewhat perplexing to have you be the one refusing to accept that the words actually says what they do.
But I really don't see this as a common language v code language. Limitations written as "Range" and limitations written as "X feet" aren't just two interchangeable ways to note the same thing, they are two different ways to define limitations.
The spell's description says otherwise.
The spell's description says that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
Rules as written do not function.
The only way the rules can function is if we change what is written to rules not as written according to a judgement of rules as intended.
We situationally change "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..." to "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 60 feet away from you..."
If your reading of the rules produces nonsensical rulings like that, you may wish to consider you have it wrong. Have a great day.
I got quotes!
They do.
Naw, it functions if we just let the range of the spell be 60ft like the feat says it is. All we need to do is pretend the word "range" means: "How far something can go." Which turns out to be really easy because that's actually what it means.
Correct. That is now the range. So that is how far it can go.
I got quotes!
It's correct that we'd need to make a change and the thing we are changing is RAW.
IF you go by RULES AS WRITTEN what you are doing is that you are going by RULES AS WRITTEN.
Rules as written say that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
What that means is that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
Read the words.
That's what's written.
If, however, you a DM wants to rule according to an interpretation of Rules As Intended, they may permit the hand to persist at a greater distance despite the written prescription of RAW.
This discussion is very funny. We all fully understand the intention of the rule. But if the rules are applied as written, you couldn't use the mage hand beyond 30 feet even with the improved range of the feat. I don't think anyone is such an idiot as to apply the rule as it is written, but as a meme it's quite funny.
Specific > General.
The Feat's text supersedes the spell's text. That's how rules in 5e work.
You guys keep quoting the part of the spell that the Feat is superseding as if it is even still relevant. it isn't. The feat changed it.
I got quotes!
Yep, the feat specifies about "the mage hand cantrip.... If you already know this spell, its range increases by 30 feet when you cast it." and mage hand says that "A spectral, floating hand appears at a point you choose within range."
The spell also states that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..." with the effect, if we followed RAW, that the hand could be made to appear at a distance of 30-60 feet away from you be it ever so briefly as RAW "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
This happens RAW because of your oft-quoted text from range that "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise" and the spell's description states that "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you..."
You are making a correct and valid application of RAI to the ongoing effect of the spell after the "spell is cast".
The “specific” text provided by the feat isn’t written in a way that actually effects the spells written description. That’s the entire point of everyone pointing out how stupid the mistake is.
it’s not like people are preventing players from enjoying the feat as intended. We just want it fixed.
The errata they released like two years after the initial UA would have been nice, since that’s how long this has been identified.
But ... there isn't a problem.
The specific text in the feat is more than clear that it supersedes the range of mage hand. So, no problem.
I got quotes!
Yeah.
No. The range was increased to 60ft by the feat. So it can't disappear before then or it wouldn't have a range of 60ft. And it does have a range of 60ft. The RAW is "its range increases by 30 feet when you cast it."
So you take that listed number in the spell text... 30ft. And you add the increase from the feat, another 30ft. You get a new total: 60ft. Now it goes out to a range of 60ft.
This is you just admitting you know that the number listed there is indeed a function of its range.
Why? Since this is a rule text from the section: Range. And only applies to spell Range. So the fact you know that they're both discussing the spell's range means you know that the distance at which the mage hand disappears is indeed the range of the spell. Thanks for conceding the argument.
"The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you or if you cast this spell again." <---is a function of the spell's range. This is fundamentally the problem some people are having a problem with. Why?
It is RAW correct too. RAI would be enough, of course. But there is nothing wrong with the RAW of the TK feat.
I got quotes!
Thank RAI it works.
I don’t understand how you don’t understand the telekinetic feat doesn’t work RAW. Have you looked into any of the distant spell limitations that have been going on since the game came out?
it’s literally the same issue and language.
Pretty sure I summed it up succinctly enough. I believe the phrase "The hand vanishes if it is ever more than 30 feet away from you or if you cast this spell again." is a function of the spell's range. because it is. And you do not. For your own reasons whatever they are.
When the feat says "its range increases by 30 feet when you cast it." I believe that means the range at which the spell is effect and can be used at is increased by 30ft and... well, you have chosen to not read it that way for whatever your reasons are.
You can distance spell mage hand, no issues.
I got quotes!